California

New Report: On the Cusp in California

Maggie Severns — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:28:00 -0400

As a recent TIME cover story notes, California is a state teeming with problems: Facing a 35 percent budget gap earlier this year, the state teetered on the verge of bankruptcy. It has a notoriously dysfunctional legislature and the nation's fourth-highest unemployment rate.

On top of that, California's schools, once among the nation's best, now rank among the bottom of all states-- 46^th nationally in 4^th grade math, and 47^th in reading. Equally troubling large achievement gaps between white and black or Hispanic fourth-graders. These problems begin even before children enter kindergarten. Only 31 percent of the state's 4-year-olds are enrolled in state-funded preschool or Head Start-and many early care and education settings fall short of high quality standards. These figures are particularly troubling considering that the state is host to one in every eight children under the age of eight in the country.

But, as a new report from the New America Foundation's Early Education Initiative argues, there are reasons for hope. Despite budget shortfalls, California is on the cusp of making real improvements in its early education system.

On the Cusp in California: How PreK-3rd Strategies Could Improve Education in the Golden State, written by long-time California education reporter Linda Jacobson, explains that key state officials, along with early childhood advocates and school reformers, have taken some important first steps to better integrate early childhood programs and move towards the more seamless PreK-3^rd early education system in California. Now policymakers and advocates need to exert leadership to create a sense of urgency around PreK-3rd reform as a strategy for improving California's education system.

PreK-3^rd reforms-- which combine high-quality pre-k and full-day kindergarten with a high-quality, aligned early elementary learning experiences that seamlessly build children's skills and knowledge to bring them to proficiency by the end of third grade-have tremendous potential to help California narrow achievement gaps and raise student learning across the board. The report seeks to help policymakers and advocates in California understand the promise of PreK-3^rd PreK-3rd strategies as well as the hurdles, and the steps the state can take to overcome them.

The report recommends 13 steps to getting this done - many of which are not budget-busters and may even help California compete for federal education grants, such as the Race to the Top program and the proposed Early Learning Challenge fund. For example, the report recommends that the state:

Replicate and scale up effective PreK-3rd models,
Implement a comprehensive early childhood data system,
Integrate pre-k funding into broader conversations about reforming the state's school finance system,
Continue working to develop and fund a voluntary Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), and
Create a PreK-3^rd teacher credential for early childhood educators.

The report also includes recommendations to improve coordination and quality among existing early care and education programs in the state and to address the needs of California's growing population of English language learner and Hispanic students. For the full list of recommendations, check out the report here. Today in Sacramento, New America is presenting details from the report to a gathering of policymakers and stakeholders.

The report was funded through generous grants from the Foundation for Child Development, the W. Clement adn Jessie V. Stone Foundation, and the Strategic Knowledge Fund, co-funded by the Foundation for Child Development and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

California's Policymaking Reaction to the Race to the Top Priorities

Jennifer Cohen — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:07:00 -0400

Since the release of the Race to the Top grant priorities in late July, states across the country have been scrambling to ensure their eligibility for their share of the $4.35 billion in federal funds to encourage innovation in education reform. Several states, including California, Nevada, Wisconsin, New York, Alaska, Missouri, and Texas, were immediately identified as ineligible for the program due to student data "fire walls" or unwillingness to participate in the common standards process. But California's Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is unwilling to let as much as $500 million slip through his fingers. On August 20^th he called a special session of the legislature to consider a bill that would immediately enact sweeping changes to the state's education system and remove any barriers to the Race to the Top funds. Below, we discuss details of the proposed California bill.

The bill includes six major changes to existing California education law:

Allow California's student level achievement data to be linked to the state's teacher data for the purposes of determining teacher compensation, promotion, and placement, and provide a method for measuring teacher performance;
Make linking education data systems a larger priority for the state and speed up the timeline in which such a data system would be available;
Remove any existing limitations on the number of charter schools allowed in the state;
Enact the Open Enrollment Act, allowing students in low-performing schools to transfer to higher performing schools in other school districts based on specified standards of acceptance;
Require the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to submit to the State Board for approval criteria and conditions for identifying low-performing schools in the state. Once approved, those criteria must be used to annually identify the bottom 5 percent of low-performing schools. Students and parents at these schools must be identified of the school's low performing status. All identified schools must be directed to adopt one of three federally approved school restructuring actions; and
Expand the data elements required in the state's student longitudinal database to comply with those identified in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

In what appears to be tricky manipulation of the already tenuous budget situation in California, the bill provides no appropriations for any of these efforts, but does allow for state-funded reimbursements for any costs incurred during implementation. Undoubtedly, creating a dynamic and useful student longitudinal data system is an expensive feat, as is bringing on staff with the knowledge and skills to link student and teacher data. Although the bill explicitly states that the state can use federal funds to enact several of the provisions, we wonder if that will be enough to cover all expenses.

As a whole, the bill Governor Schwarzenegger submitted is a near replica of the priorities outlined by the Race to the Top priorities. It eliminates the student data "fire wall" and removes any arbitrary caps to charter schools. Additionally, it puts the state in a good position to dramatically improve the capabilities of its existing student longitudinal data system and puts the state directly in line with federal methods for school improvement and restructuring. In fact, it seems clear that the Obama Administration has paved the way for these changes which have received vehement opposition from a variety of California stakeholders in the past.

In many ways, the California school reform legislation can be construed as a shrewd attempt to curry favor with an administration that is positioned to hand out significant funds to a struggling state. But it also represents a shift from California's typically status quo education environment that would have left the state ineligible for Race to the Top monies. In fact, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell stated during a webinar that he would be embarrassed if California were to receive any funds given the state of its education data system.

But Governor Schwarzenegger cannot be faulted for his desire to win some of the Race to the Top funds. Given the state's fiscal troubles, $500 million could certainly do some good. But passing this legislation will not be easy - the teachers unions, who are against the use of student data for teacher performance and pay decisions, are already lined up in opposition and time and money are not on his side.

Cash for Clunker Buildings

Terry Tamminen — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:33:00 -0400

As the US, Germany, and other nations pay people to scrap their polluting cars, what other clunkers are in the marketplace that might respond to an incentive? How about buildings?

Consumers, businesses, and governments spend billions to fight air pollution. The question is not whether to spend money for a healthier environment (and therefore a healthier population), because if we don't solve the problem, we pay for it with higher health care costs and lost productivity (to name just two consequences of air pollution). The question is - - what programs give us the highest return on invested capital?

The cash for clunker cars program has proven effective in California on a dollars-per-ton of pollution removed basis. It will likely prove equally effective on the national level, so how about a national "cash for clunker buildings" program, but instead of a trade in, you get a few dollars to tune it up. California has started just such a program, beginning with its own state government buildings. Governor Schwarzenegger's Energy Efficiency Executive Order of July 27, 2004, commits state government to "reduce grid-based energy purchases for state-owned buildings by 20% by 2015, through cost-effective efficiency measures and distributed generation technologies."

That mandate includes retro-commissioning and retro-fitting. The former means going through a building to ensure all electrical devices are working as designed. No new equipment is installed. The latter means replacing inefficient lighting, heating and air conditioning, insulation, elevator motors, and so on with new efficient versions. Both programs save energy and money, but obviously the former delivers results immediately for very little investment, while the latter takes months and many thousands of dollars.

But how much improvement can you get with just a tune-up and not a major overhaul? To date, California has performed tune-ups on nearly 50 state buildings and has realized on average a 11% reduction in electricity consumption and a 16% reduction in natural gas consumption. That's a lot of energy saving for the cost of a few hours of snooping around and tweaking the equipment. That's also a very cheap cost-per-ton of air pollution reduced.

The feds should take a page from the California playbook (again!) and pay for inspections, training, and tune ups of older buildings. It would cost little and save a lot. It would create jobs that pay for themselves. Best of all, we would all breathe easier, both financially and physically. Say, do you think with the money saved and a healthier population we might even be able to afford health care for everyone?

Can 'Average' Californians Manage a Constitutional Convention?

Steven Hill — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:25:00 -0400

As you ride the bus or freeway to work tomorrow, ask yourself: Can the person seated next to you, or driving past you, be trusted with the job of redesigning California's basic political and budgetary rules? Are "average Californians" ready to don the white powdered wigs to become the Founding Mothers and Fathers of a new California?

With efforts to call a constitutional convention picking up steam, a proposal for "citizen delegates" has generated considerable interest. Rather than holding elections or having state officials appoint the delegates, about 400 delegates would be randomly selected to produce a scientifically representative sample of all Californians. No political insiders or partisan apparatchiks need apply, just Golden Staters motivated by a sincere desire to help their state.

That's the theory, but could it actually work? Even if the citizen delegates were high-minded and lacking in partisan and personal agendas, are average people capable of the kind of in-depth understanding of complex issues necessary for redesigning California's basic institutions?

In short, I believe the answer is yes. Read my oped in the Sacramento Bee to find out more by clicking here.

California Senate Majority Leader Endorses Constitutional Convention

Micah Weinberg — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:03:00 -0400

"If Madison was right about the need for well-functioning legislative bodies, and if society is losing them, then we would expect to see signs of the twin threats of which Madison warned - chaos and tyranny. Disturbingly, we do see those signs today."

These words were written by the Majority Leader of the California State Senate in a paper entitled, "The Dangers of Government Gridlock and the Need for a Constitutional Convention."

The Senate Majority Leader in question was Barry Keene and the year was 1992.

But this warning could easily grace the editorial pages of today as the state's leaders quaver on the edge of an even wider budget chasm and as the tide of discontent with the political status quo rises ever higher.

The familiarity of Keene's concerns - and he wasn't alone - belies the notion that our current problem are due to a recent rise in political polarization or a uniquely venal set of public officials. In fact, a constitutional revision commission was convened in the mid 1990s, though its sensible bipartisan recommendations were ignored by a state that was able to coast through a few more years of denial fueled by the tech and housing booms.

But after these gold rushes, we find ourselves in even more dire straits because the root causes of our problems will not go away for all of our wishing. In Keene's words:

"Some people argue that the problems of government are personal rather than structural. They say that our leaders do not lead, do not care or are crooks. But those charges beg the question - why do even the best people in government accomplish to little? The reasons are partly societal, as mentioned, partly attitudinal, as I will note, but mainly structural."

Some of the problems he identifies are endemic to the U.S. Constitutional system as a whole:

"The U.S. and California constitutions invite voters to elect legislative majorities of one philosophy and chief executives of another philosophy. The voters accept the invitation regularly. Enacting policy that moves in one direction, while implementing it in the opposite, virtually guarantees stalemate."

Conventional wisdom would suggest that our political problems primarily result from California-specific policy straitjackets we have buckled ourselves into - such as Propositions 13 and 98. But the current budget standoff between a Republican governor and Democratic legislature is just politics as usual in the checked and balanced American system.

Thad Kousser, Professor of Political Science at the University of California at San Diego made this exact point about divided government and gridlock in his presentation at a forum that the New America Foundation hosted on constitutional reform. It is also echoed within a paper from last fall by Eric McGhee of the Public Policy Institute of California on "Redistricting and Legislative Partisanship."

But as Keene saw then - and as many are observing now - some of our structural problems, if not entirely unique, are magnified dramatically in California. An excellent example is our extraordinary abuse initiative process. As Keene explain, the sentiments that have lead Californians to develop these patterns are understandable but these actions are ultimately self-defeating:

"The public sees that the state government is stalemated. People turn to initiatives that, with all of their failings, have the one apparent virtue the Governor and the Legislature often lack - they at least accomplish something. But in doing so, they drive the regular policymakers from the decisionmaking field; the initiatives' special-interest sponsors lock them into the constitution, or into initiative statutes that the Governor and Legislature generally cannot change in response to new circumstances or new public demands. Government becomes even more stalemated."

Many of solutions to this stalemate advanced by Keene would also look very familiar to the reformers of today. He advocates for better campaign finance laws, a streamlined and simplified constitution, and an end to incumbent-oriented redistricting.

California did managed to constructively address the last of these issues through the success of Proposition 11 last year. The campaign finance system, though, has become even more embarrassingly perverse since then; the constitution even more bloated and trivialized.

Perhaps, therefore, we will put in place some of the more fundamental changes Keene recommends including the restoration of political parties, perhaps even within a parliamentary system of government. My colleague Mark Paul and I have also recommended sweeping reforms such as the implementation of full representation within legislative elections. And we're not afraid of parties.

But beyond endorsing specific reforms both incremental and radical, the punchline of Keene's piece is his call for a constitutional convention:

"The structural roadblocks to legislative decisionmaking also prevent the Legislature from enacting most constitutional reform. This is why we need a constitutional convention in California and perhaps in other states."

Over the course of the past year, the Bay Area Council, a group of 500 CEOs, has issued another clarion call for constitutional reform. Some have expressed concern that the convention would get caught up in debates about social issues. Keene spoke to these concerns compellingly saying:

"The risk of a runaway state convention is minor, compared with the near-certainty of continued paralysis without one."

Californians are waking up to the need for fundamental structural reform. But there is no guarantee that they will have the right leadership to make these vitally necessary changes or the wherewithal to see the process through to its conclusion. Some still dither, worried about sacred cows that artificially distort tax rates or perpetually lock in funding for specific programs. But until we all let go of our policy prejudices, take a leap of faith with each other, and fix the structural problems that ail the state, things will continue to get worse. Barry Keene saw it in 1992; organizations like the Bay Area Council, the New America Foundation, California Forward and the William C. Velasquez Institute see it today.

Or, on the other hand, we may live in denial for a few more years; after all, our once great state, was once very, very great and has not yet completely rotted to the core.

Is Welfare Program Oversubscribed in California?

Joe Mathews — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:21:00 -0400

Chris Reed, writing at America's Finest Blog (for non-Californians, this is a reference to Reed's town, San Diego, which long ago was dubbed America's Finest City), has ferreted out an interesting statistic that needs more explanation.

That stat: California, with one-eighth of the nation's population, has nearly one-third of all folks enrolled with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program created by the 1996 federal welfare reform. All told, that's 1.2 million people in California. New York, with a population roughly half of California's, has just more than 252,000 people enrolled in the program.

Little Hoover: Stem Cell Agency Board Should Shrink, Restructuring Needed

Joe Mathews — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:31:00 -0400

California's Little Hoover Commission, which investigates government agencies and focuses on efficiency, is out with a thoughtful new report on the state's stem cell agency and its governing board.

The report concludes that the board of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) is too large and that the initiative that created the agency, Prop 71 in 2004, is "overly prescriptive" and locks in place too many inefficiencies. I reported as much last month in the Scientific American.

Among the major recommendations, from a summary released by Little Hoover:

"-Restructure the CIRM governing board around principles of efficiency and
transparency. The board size should be reduced to 15 from 29, maintaining the
diversity of membership but adding independent voices to the board. Board terms
should be shortened to four years for all members and the appointment process should
be streamlined. To eliminate overlapping authority and enhance accountability, the
roles of chair and president should be restructured and clarified. To minimize
disruption that can occur through turnover and changes in the governance structure,
new board members should be phased in as terms expire. The ICOC name also should
be changed to the Board of Directors to more accurately reflect its composition.
Improve the process for distributing grant and loan funds. To enhance
efficiency and transparency, the 50-employee cap on staffing should be removed, as
should the 15-person limit on peer reviewers. CIRM should modify its triage plan to
review grants internally. CIRM also should explore options for greater disclosure of the
peer review process and amend all meeting minutes to specify individual board
members' votes and recusals, and continue the practice moving forward.

"-Enhance oversight of CIRM. The Citizens Financial Accountability Oversight
Committee (CFAOC) and the CIRM governing board should use their authority to
enhance oversight. The CFAOC, chaired by the State Controller, should exercise its
existing authority, or be statutorily authorized if necessary, to conduct performance
audits and hold regular meetings to review CIRM's programmatic and strategic
performance, in addition to overseeing CIRM's annual financial audits. The CIRM
governing board should hold its members accountable by adopting removal provisions
in its bylaws.

"-Require the CIRM governing board to begin planning for CIRM's future. To
prepare for change in leadership, the CIRM governing board should create succession
plans for board leadership through an open process. The agency should include in its
strategic plan clear direction for spending funds, with measurable benchmarks and a
transition plan for when bond funding expires."

Should Voters Have to Approve All Pension Increases?

Joe Mathews — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:33:00 -0400

California is slowly moving in this direction. Orange County adopted a measure requiring voter approval of pension increases for government workers last fall. San Diego has a similar requirement in place. Now Ventura County is looking at putting such a measure on the ballot next year.

It's true that state legislators and local elected officials have a record of irresponsible pension giveaways. (For evidence, look no further than SB 400, the notorious 1999 law that permitted the spiking of pensions across California). But, as this story notes, voters can be big spenders too, even when it comes to pensions.

There's also a question of how intimately voters should be involved in government decisions. The move by economic conservatives to require votes on pensions mirrors the effort by environmentalists and NIMBY types to require votes on every change in land use policy. I can think of any number of controversial government decisions that might be routinely kicked to voters. Should every local community vote on any new government contract? Every new traffic rerouting? Every school opening or closing? Where does it stop?

Keeping Track of Kids Entering Kindergarten

Sara Mead — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:58:00 -0400

A new report from California’s Children Now calls on the state to implement a comprehensive system that provides policymakers, educators and parents with better information about the skills of California’s youngsters when they enter kindergarten.

Already at least five counties in California have implemented their own systems for observing and taking note of kindergarteners’ skills. Children Now emphasizes that such observations should never have high stakes for children -- rather, they are primarily tools to help policymakers, educators, and parents improve the quality of education and other services provided to young children, both before and in kindergarten. Critically, the purpose of collecting such data isn’t just to see whether children are ready for kindergarten, but equally or even more so to ensure that elementary schools are ready to serve the children who come to them. Because these systems provide kindergarten teachers and principals with information about entering students’ strengths and gaps in their learning, schools can tailor their instruction to match children’s needs. Not only does this improve the quality of instruction that kindergarteners receive, it also helps to foster a smooth transition between pre-K and kindergarten.

We’re particularly taken with the report’s discussion of the potential of good kindergarten readiness observations to support PreK-3rd reforms by facilitating communication, collaboration and shared professional development between teachers at the pre-K and kindergarten levels.

Children Now also emphasizes that observations must consider more than children’s cognitive and early academic skills. The report calls for comprehensive approaches that pay careful attention to children’s physical well-being and motor development, social and emotional development, approaches to learning, and communication and language use, as well as cognition and general knowledge. Some states, such as Florida, have developed kindergarten readiness assessments that fail to take some of these important measures into account.

The report includes a good overview of the extent to which states currently use some form of observation system, profiles of California counties that have implemented sound systems, and features a list of steps the state must take to move towards more systematically collecting valid and reliable information on the skills and development of incoming kindergarteners.

Implementing observation systems like this costs money, and given California’s current budget and political situation, it’s unclear whether they will be introduced at the state level in the near term. Yet, such a system could actually save the state and its school districts money over the long run, by supporting more efficient early intervention and instruction at the elementary level, helping reduce rates of special education placement and catching struggling students before they fall too far behind.

California would be smart to use the data that could be collected under Children Now’s proposal in longitudinal student data systems that it – and other states -- are developing or have developed for K-12 education. As we’ve written previously, the stimulus legislation specifically requires states to have PreK-12 student longitudinal data systems, but many states have not done a good job of integrating pre-K data into their systems. Building data systems that have the capacity to include kindergarten readiness indicators, as well as information on the type of pre-K program, if any, a child attended, would be a valuable improvement on the status quo.

Finally, we’re curious how these policies relate to the larger discussion at the national level about the Obama administration’s proposed Early Learning Challenge Fund program. Information that the administration has released to date makes clear that measuring outcomes for early childhood programs will be a critical objective of the administration’s going forward. Do comprehensive, developmentally appropriate systems for assessing kindergarten readiness have a role to play here?

How to Make Self-Funding Initiative Legislation Work

Joe Mathews — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:31:00 -0400

Mark Paul, New America senior scholar, has studied the question of how the state might implement rules requiring initiatives that create new spending to include a source of revenues. (This is in reference to California legislation, SCA-14, prohibiting "something for nothing" initiatives that mandate spending without new revenues). Here is the relevant excerpt from a memo he prepared on the subject.

"The initiative process is established in Article 2, Section 8 of the state consti-
tution. This section should be amended to provide that no initiative measure
shall be placed before voters or have any effect if it increases General Fund
spending or reduces General Fund revenues and does not include provisions
that offset those effects on the state budget.
"To carry out this constitutional change, it will also be necessary to revise the
corresponding statutes involving the initiative process. Section 12172 of the
Government Code and Section 9005 of the Elections Code currently guide
the preparation of a ﬁscal analysis of initiatives submitted to the Attorney
General for title and summary. These seem the most likely places to add lan-
guage specifying how it will be determined if an initiative meets the new
constitutional language barring 'something for nothing' measures.
"Issues for consideration:
"1. Threshold. Should the prohibition on 'something for nothing' initia-
tives have a threshold? The goal of the changes proposed here is to
keep the initiative process from distorting the state's ﬁnances. But the
costs associated with "something for nothing" measures range from
very minor to huge. It seems sensible to set a threshold for application
of this provision, just as there is usually a dollar threshold set by the
appropriations committees in dealing with legislation. For example,
the constitutional provision could require an offset when the initiative is estimated to have an annual ﬁscal effect amounting to more than
one-twentieth of 1 percent of the General Fund (roughly $50 million in
current terms) or more than one-tenth of 1 percent of the General Fund
in one-time or capital costs (roughly $100 million).
2. Time frame. The language should spell out over what time the initiative
should be measured for ﬁscal effect. The time should be long enough
to discourage initiative proponents from backloading costs into future
years but short enough to allow for credible estimates by analysts.
Given that the most expensive measures have been those, like Three
Strikes, that build up slowly, ten years seems a reasonable time frame.
3. Fiscal estimates. Under current law, the Legislative Analyst, Depart-
ment of Finance, and Joint Legislative Budget Committee have roles in
determining the ﬁscal impact of initiatives. Does it make sense to set
up a process for estimating how much a measure will cost and
whether the proposed offsets are sufﬁcient or credible? Would it be
useful for there to be a way for the public to participate (by way of a
hearing?) in the analysis or give the initiative proponent an opportunity
to appeal an estimate he or she considers incorrect or arbitrary?"